Are we really going to pretend we were fooled into the Iraq War?

I use 'we' and 'us' throughout to mean the entity the American people. Most people reading this, here on DU, were neither fooled nor "fooled."

The American people did not, at any point, believe that Iraqi WMD posed a threat to the USA.

Just because Bush said X, Y and Z doesn't mean that most people believed X, Y and Z. Bush lied plenty... but he didn't fool that many people because the public really didn't care about the WMD. They pretended to in order to feel good about their desire for senseless murder on television.

Aside from the Fox news crowd, the American people thought that:

1) We could use a morale boost, since we hadn't really mass-murdered enough people to scratch our 9/11 itch
2) Iraqis were non-white and non-Christian and thus as good a target as anyone else, and
3) We would steal "their" oil, thereby taking something we wanted from "them."

The American people were not fooled. They were fed a rationalization, which is not being fooled, but rather encouraged into a convenient self deception. The entire RW think-tank apparatus exists to provide a flimsy intellectual facade that couldn't fool anyone who isn't lining up to be "fooled," but that serves as a moral/intellectual fig-leaf for people seeking to rationalize their base impulses. (i.e., "This study shows that cutting off welfare is really doing 'them' a favor.")

I would suggest that Americans were roughly as afraid of the Iraq WMD pretext as they were enthused about the spreading Democracy pretext, which is to say not much. "We" just wanted to see Arabs beat down, and buildings leveled.

Even if everything Bush said had been true there was still no sane reason to invade Iraq. Fig leaf. Pretext.

It was an old fashioned lynching. If you can't hang the one who did it, hang a different one of "them" who is a known troublemaker.

Being the instigator of a lynching is a dark and terrible thing, and Bush owns that. But let's not pretend that the mob itself has a plausible, "we were tricked" defense.

If the American people were actually fooled they would have impeached Bush when no WMD were found, and surely not elected him in 2004. The reaction of the American people was like people seeing P. T. Barnum's mermaid. (A monkey sewed to a fish) People were not shocked by Barnum's shabby mermaid. They didn't burn down the Circus. They always knew there wasn't going to be a real mermaid. The audience seeking entertainment is accomplice to their own deception.

The ho-hum reaction to no WMD being found suggests that nobody much cared whether there were WMD. Where were the riots? Most of the American "us" knew on some level that it was hokum... a pretext to kick ass and steal oil.

Did the people turn on the war when the pretext was exposed as a fraud? No. They turned on the war after that, when it became apparent that 1) we were losing it, and 2) gas prices didn't go down.

We felt sorry for ourselves and felt entitled to murder countless Arabs and to rape an Arab nation's oil. Bush wanted to do it. Not enough people felt like doing anything to stop it.

55. You're so right

There were thousands of people demonstrating in the streets in New York, Washington and other cities against "No Blood for Oil" back before the invasion of Iraq (I was one of them) but the complicit MSM barely covered the demonstrations and would only publish horrendous under-counts of the number of people at the demonstrations. Many TV stations didn't even mention them in their newscasts. They were in on it

My point is of course that many of us were not fooled at all and knew what Chaney (he of Haliburton and their no-bid billion dollar war contracts) and Bush were up to. We were the same just-over-half of the country that voted against Bush in 2000 but were snookered by the Scalias and Thomases on the Supreme Court. We were demonstrating and voicing our opinion against the war. You might say the fix was in on the war just as it was in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

67. The REAL "know-nothings" accused "us" of being a bunch of ignorant, naive "know-nothings"

who were a danger to the country and would get the rest of us killed if we didn't cheer on the invasion. As it turns out, most of "us" were right and our "leaders" were dangerously WRONG about everything and the only *positive* outcome of the whole endeavor was getting rid of Saddam, his goons, and kooky and sociopathic sons. However, given the monstrous price tag- in terms of American and Iraqi lives, money, prestige, etc.- that we paid to accomplish that, I don't think that anybody can say, with a straight face, that it was worth it, particularly when the war wasn't even "sold" on the basis of getting rid of Saddam. It was about disarming Saddam Hussein of WMDs which, as we learned later and I think that most of us suspected at the time, were non-existent or at least not serious enough of a problem to warrant an invasion/occupation, especially since Saddam had (reluctantly) allowed UN inspectors back in at the time. The thing that always got me whenever Bush, Cheney, et. al started talking about Iraq being such a "threat" to our country and the world is that Iraq didn't even have full control over its own airspace! Shouldn't any country planning to attack the US and/or threaten the world at least have control over its own airspace???? Also revealing of the deception about the threat level posed by Iraq was the fact that most other countries in the region or nearby didn't feel threatened enough by Iraq to support the invasion/occupation of Iraq.

73. Not taking it personally, but thanks for the clarification anyway. :)

It's difficult for me now to realize how clueless I was back then. My best friend and I were discussing this the other day -- thankfully our interests and passions have kept pace. Neither of us cared about what was going on in politics. We were of the "they're always fighting, they always sort it out" attitude, and left it to those who were "into politics" (you! ) to present us with the Democratic candidates to vote for. He was a little more interested because of his parents, but not much.

Now we're CONSUMED by it and feel the frustration you all have been experiencing for years when you tried to explain what was going on and being dismissed and not taken seriously. I would have been one of the ones rolling my eyes and shining you on!

My point was that so many of us don't pay attention and stuff like this ISN'T obvious at all. And "they" have brainwashed us so much that we believe the media and ultimately trust that everything will shake out okay. People don't go beyond listening to the headlines on the nightly news and think they know all they need to.

Thankfully that seems to be changing -- and I'm hoping that I'm not just thinking that because now I AM taking note!

I was so appalled and stunned when Bush got the second term, I decided I just couldn't sit back and not be involved anymore.

76. i know a lot of people in the same boat. and people have blindspots- you see a lot of

the " "they're always fighting, they always sort it out" attitude" here too, when people are ignorant or not interested in issues.
why not opt out or ask questions instead of posting that useless crap. (not you!)

9. What I've always suspected

is that at least some Americans felt so humiliated at their country having been punk'd by 19 thugs with box cutters that they felt something - anything - had to be done to remind the world that America Is Number One. We're the biggest, strongest and baddest country in the world and somebody is gonna get stomped. I used to work with a lot of former military people and these guys had so much anger, which was directed generally against any Muslim/Arab country or person, that it was obvious there had to be a war of retribution, just to show those people you don't mess with 'Merkins.

11. Yes, OP thinks that everyone must believe the same things that the OP does.

Up until at least the end of December 2002, the Clintons both thought Iraq likely had WMD, John Kerry thought that Iraq likely had WMD, leaders in Syria, Russia, China, France, the UK thought it likely that Iraq had WMD.

I think once you allow yourself to believe that everyone thinks like you, it allows very provincial thinking and opinions.

And if you think people 'know' and 'believe' the same things you do and they take what you think is the wrong course of action, its easy to label them 'bad people'. Hence the labeling of many Democrats who voted for IWR.

Not only did most Americans and most high level politicians and pundits globally think that Iraq had WMD until the end of 2002, many Americans believed crazy things like the poll you cite showed.

There is nothing wrong that anyone in the world did regarding Iraq right up until the end of November of 2002 and that includes IWR and UN Sec Res 1441. That is regardless of the fact that both IWR and UN Sec Res 1441 were later misused by the Bush admin to justify war.

There was nothing wrong with putting pressure on Saddam Hussein to try to get Weapons Inspectors back into the country. That is what those two actions were intended to do. Weapons inspectors were in fact allowed back into Iraq within a week of IWR and UN Sec Res 1441 and their inspections clearly showed in their reports on March 7, 2003 that no weapons were found in the inspections after every site had been inspected.

After the inspectors were allowed in, it was then that the Bush admin intentions started to become clear as they continued to press for military action. Even that at first could have been dismissed as potential posturing to make sure Iraq didnt turn around and kick the inspectors out or impede their progress.

98. "Virtually the entire world" ... REALLY??!!!

You must live in a "virtual world" of your own making, because many people who lived in the real world weren't buying into the bullshit.

For example, Scott Ritter (former marine and US inspector on the ground in Iraq) and Will Pitt wrote a book that was published in September 2002 debunking the lies. Both of them, by the way, are among the people in "the entire world."

http://www.amazon.com/War-Iraq-What-Team-Doesnt/dp/1893956385"Ritter--ex-Marine, intelligence specialist, expert on Iraqi military strategy, and Gulf War veteran--dismantles the myths surrounding Saddam Hussein's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons capabilities while revealing the neo-conservative forces pushing the White House toward war. During the seven years the inspections took place, Ritter and other inspectors were able to confirm that Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs were effectively destroyed, counter to current White House claims."

83. There are some who wanted that, yes. That doesnt explain the rest of the world believing WMD were in

Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441"Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by Iraqi troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
.
.
.

"The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:
“ his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security."
.
.
.

"The ambassador from Syria said: "Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue."
-----------------------------------------
Here is my main concern with many comments I see Warren. They blame Democrats who voted for IWR, they call them complicit, etc. IWR happened within a few days of UN Sec Res 1441. As we can see, virtually the entire world believed that Iraq had WMD and was in violations of various UN Resolutions and they voted to express that in UN SEC Res 1441.

If you are going to blame Democrats for voting for IWR, the same arguments can be used to attack 99.9% of the rest of the world who believed the same things. I think those who were against IWR are generally anti-war or distrustful of the establishment. They weren't against IWR because they "knew there were no WMD in Iraq in November of 2002" because no one knew that. Any suggestions otherwise are suppositions and non-factual. We didn't factually know that until the Weapons inspectors returned later that month (Nov of 2002) and began to issue reports on their (non)findings.

But we did know for sure and without any argument March 7, 2003 when the final UN Weapons Inspector reports were made that there were no WMD in Iraq. We invaded 13 days later anyway.

30. Sure, and USAToday posted that finding after election 2000 that Bush* won

A poll issued about the same time the war in Iraq was started reflected that a majority of Democrats were against it.

I personally thought the whole thing was a lie, I did not believe there were weapons of mass destruction, and I joined many people here in condemning the concept of a preemptive war.

It seemed only common sense if one knew the background of the players that they again were publicly lying and thought they could sell their lies to the majority of the American people. I did not believe then that they did, and I still believe now they did not. The problem was those against that war could not find a way to stop Bush.

As far as 911, I live 15 miles outside of Washington, DC and I worked in DC for decades. That day I was as usual in the heart of DC. When this Country was hit and I heard that Bush* was in Florida, I immediately thought HE KNEW. As I watched the Pentagon burn on a television set and heard the City was locked down, meaning the metro was stopped from running and no one could leave the City, nor could one ask a friend or relative to drive into DC and give them a ride home, scenes of Bush in Florida soon appeared on that screen. When he appeared to be surprised to be alerted to the fact we were under attack, that effort too was a massive fail. He already knew.

When I finally arrived home late that evening, I called a Bush* supporter in my family and said, "That man is a coward. He knew Washington was going to be attacked and he left town without as much as a heads up to the rest of us. As long as he got out okay, that was the important thing."

And lastly, I knew Saddam Hussein was not involved in 911, as did most people here.

34. I certainly don't believe Bush was involved in any way with September 11 - That strikes me as the

left-wing equivalent of Obama is a secular, socialist, Islamic extremist who wants to impose Sharia Law while forcing gay marriage and abortion on all of us. And frankly that kind of creative speculation about Bush and 9/11 undermines left-wing credibility every bit as much and is as damaging to the left as the Obama is the anti-Christ nonsense undermines the credibility of the Republicans. Bush and his people are far too inept to carry out a conspiracy like that. In fact it is pretty much impossible in the modern world to carry out something that big and that secretive. But nonetheless, there is no doubt that they took advantage of the situation and the event empowered the most reactionary elements of the Republican Party. In urban America one can easily miss out on just how reactionary and simplistic close to half of America really is. Just recently I got back in contact on Facebook with several members of my high school graduating class which happened to be in small semi-rural Pennsylvania toiwn. Many of these people think it is a fact that Obama is anti-Israeli and probably anti-Semitic Muslim, a radical secular-socialist who really wants to drive religion out of America while destroying the free enterprise system and transforming America into a socialist society and forcing gay marriage on people while he takes away their guns. This is not some small marginal portion of Americans. It is a major portion - probably somewhere around 40%. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001 - the shock opened the door for the Bush Administration and their backers to play on the darkest fears of America with the willing compliance of a sycophantic media. Even most of the Democratic Party became dangerously compliant. There is no doubt that most Americans did at the time of March 2003 support he invasion of Iraq - incorrectly believing even up to more than a year after the fact that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government were personally involved with September 11. Unfortunately most Americans really did believe that at the time and no doubt at least one third of Americans still do.

68. I did not say that he was involved

I said I thought instantly he knew we were going to be hit in Washington and he left town without giving the rest of us a warning. The person I referenced in my earlier post worked in the Intelligence community, and he had absolutely no response to the words I called and said to him. The silence was deafening. It was not a coincidence that Bush was in Florida, where his brother was the governor.

Regarding what "most people" thought, there was a poll that came out at the time Bush* was asking the American people to support the invasion, and politicians to sign off on it. A majority of Dems did not support the invasion according to that poll, and I believe that was an accurate number. That number was over 50 percent.

69. Both the NY Times and USA Today were involved in participating in studying the recount

USA Today participated with the consortium and I believe I read their reporting first. Here is a clip of something I found:

"An earlier study by a different media consortium reached similar conclusions. That study was conducted by a group that included the Miami Herald, USA Today and Knight Ridder newspapers. As USA Today said of the findings on May 11, 2001:

USA Today: George W. Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida’s presidential election if the most widely accepted standard for judging votes had been applied.

The newspaper said that Gore might have won narrowly if lenient standards were used that counted every mark on a ballot. "But," it said, "Gore could not have won without a hand count of overvote ballots, something that he did not request."

But a number of people kind of scoffed at the Consortium's conclusions and kept waiting for the NYTimes reporting. My best memory of that time was that it kept postponing its findings. I believe the Bush administration did not want anything published which disputed the authenticity of his presidency. And I have always believed that is why the myriad of postponents happened. Please remember at that time the press had ceased to cover the dispute for the most part, and Margaret Carlson, in one of those open mikes misspeaks, said "we are not allowed to talk about that," meaning the 2000 election. Also during this time frame, the Spin Room was abruptly taken off the air because Bill Press did continued to talk about it.

But when the NY Times finally published its findings, it was totally worthless because 3 counties in Florida absolutely refused to turn over its ballots. One of those counties was rumored to be among those highest in illegal vote manipulation.

We will never have absolute proof of who won that election, but I do not know of any credible periodical that went out on a limb and literally said the election results remained in dispute.

70. That is exactly what they reported because I remember reading the details

Under most scenarios in its article, Gore would have won. There was one under which Bush* might have won.

But in the overall scheme of things, the US Constitution delegates the right to run presidential elections to each of the states. Each state is supposed to outline its rules in the state constitution in advance of the election. The highest authority in Florida on this issue was the Florida Supreme Court, which issued that infamous decision starting out "The right to vote is paramount." That decision should have been the last word. But Baker always had a plan to get that election to the U.S. Supreme Court because he knew which way that decision would go. The Supreme Court failed the American people when it agreed to hear the dispute.

64. Here it is. I think this NY Times article is the one to which you are referring

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER
Published: November 12, 2001

Acomprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

.
.
.

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."

In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.

72. As you can see from the date, that was issued late in 2001

The Consortium came out with different findings earlier in the year. USA Today participated in that investigation.
Both USA Today and the NY Times failed to accurately report on the recount because neither had ALL of the ballots in Florida (3 counties were missing because they refused to participate).

13. I think that is because the realization was a slow one. The UN Weapons inspector reports of 3/7/03

were not well publicized. Somewhere around 3% more of the public per month after May of 2003 came to doubt whether WMD would be found in Iraq and the admin's original story. Since it was such a slow rolling realization, there was no explosive moment. I dont think more tham 80% of the public still believe there were no WMD in Iraq. 20% or so think we actually found WMD. Don't forget, some Repug sources still claim that some WMD were found and the most faithful of the faithful on that side actually believe it.

I remember going to a protest in April or May of 2003 with the group St. Pete for Peace in St. Petersburg Florida, and we were heckled by a lot of people who yelled at us that WMD would be found. This in response to our signs that read "Where are the WMD?"

14. But it isn't a real democracy anymore.

In 2000, we didn't elect George Bush as president. Yet, we didn't do anything to stop this shocking tragedy either. And that was before we lost our 1 citizen/1 vote power. Our singular vote is now worth a hundredth or thousandth of an entire whole vote. Citizens United gave the majority of the voting power to the donors of the campaigns.

By the time TeamBush had contrived the Iraq War, we were already defeated as a living democracy and we knew it. It's like now. We know we are totally impotent to counter the power of big money. Wall Street owns us. They are our masters. We loathe it and loathe ourselves for not standing up to them, but it's true. We're scared to confront our masters. They have missiles, drones, armies and naval forces. We have no representative government. My congres

16. I objected, they didn't care.

18. I agree with you. I remember my astonishment after Powell's speech to the UN.

It was supposed to be a case for war, it was supposed to lay out proof that we were under some kind of imminent threat, and what it ended up being was some flip signs with cartoon pictures of trucks next to quonsett huts. I kept thinking, if you are going to war, there has to be at least one fact or one iota of proof you can point to. If the threat is credible, there has to be at least one photo, one credible witness. There wasn't.

I thought for sure there would finally be an outcry in Congress against the path we were taking. But there wasn't. That war was bought (but not paid for) the moment 9/11 happened. And it had been planned, overtly, by the neocons long before 9/11.

50. I heard that also..

... when I was in a selling business working with customers - a dude in the Army stopped by (he was probably 40 or so, a lifer) and after discussing product for a while we got on the subject of the war. He was not strongly against it but seemed to think on balance it was a mistake. Then he said (paraphrasing) "we've been preparing for this war since Bush took office".

I'll withhold my harsh opinion of anyone who 1) didn't see this was a snow job or 2) thought the war was a good idea anyway.

96. Excellent book and I believe that incident happened at the first cabinet meeting

He had a list of things he wanted to talk about (he was the Treasury Secretary) and he was shut down when the meeting was turned over to Condi Rice. Saddam Hussein was causing a lot of problems, it was said. Paul O'Neill I believe had worked for Reagan. The Bush team thought when they fired him that would be the last they would see or hear from him. But he has a lot of connections in Washington. He didn't go away and he didn't shut up. A Republican who showed integrity, he was a rare find in DC.

19. Readers of Forbes weren't fooled...

prior to the invasion they were told that Saddam had allowed his oil fields to fall into decay. With the rising price of oil there were tanker-fulls of cash to be made from oil that was close to the surface and relatively easy to refine. With the right source of information, Americans were quite well informed.

Some Democrats who voted FOR the Invasion & Occupation of Iraq later recanted their vote,
claiming (LOL) that Bush Fooled Them.

And other Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, stands by her vote claiming that Invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22. Hans Blix

When it became abundantly clear that Iraq had no WMDs, I somehow assumed that that fact would cause enormous outrage. I thought the president would either step down or be impeached. How could I have been so naive? All of a sudden the war wasn't about WMD at all, and nobody had ever thought Iraq had them. It was all about Regime Change, and besides, it was all Saddam's fault for letting everybody think he had WMD by not letting in the UN weapon's inspectors. That's right, the same people who had just a year earlier mocked Hans Blix as a complete idiot who was fooled by the crafty Iraqies hiding their WMD under his nose, suddenly pretended Hans Blix had never existed.

And nobody in the media called them on it. Everybody agreed that the war had been about Regime Change all along, and that Iraq had refused entry to the UN weapon's inspectors.

24. Perspective from Wilton Sekzer (clip from "Why We Fight")

35. I was just thinking about that clip as I was reading the OP. . .

I got to see the New York premier of the film, which was attended by Eugene Jarecki, the director of the film. After the final credits, he took questions from the audience for a little over an hour. I remember him saying how he and his crew absolutely fell in love with Mr. Sekzer and his story.

33. 150 US cities had protests Feb 15 2003.

That's ignoring the worldwide protests that occurred that same day.

I do think the polls were bullshit because the MSM fueled anti-Iraq sentiments for months leading up to it.

But I do not think people thinking irrationally is an indictment on those people. It's an indictment on their media and the propaganda they are exposed to (the MSM knew they'd make bank if they followed a war).

36. I remember watching the polls from here. Studying each and every one of them.

Disappointing time after time, not really close in the results, but not so far apart that you couldn't hope just a little. Finally it seemed that they were turning just a bit, more evenly pro and con , still not a majority against war, just not as strong pro war and then there was one or two that really looked like against the war was starting to trend, not very long after those was March 19, 2003.

I feel stupid; I had hoped all of the way up to the end, because the polls weren't THAT strong for war against Iraq.

The damned media carried next to 0 information that opposed the administration's line about the whole thing and lots of people really did seem to just let the whole thing float.

26. I was out protesting and then I got really sick so I was in the hospital after it started up....

29. Most people with a brain were not fooled

However, there are a whole lot of folks who will believe anything an authority figure tells them and take it as the gospel truth. Otherwise known as sheep. They will always, always vastly outnumber those who question things.

32. The polls were MSM fueled idiocy.

The MSM wanted the wars. They wanted it badly. So of course the polls reflect that.

So yeah, the polls reflect a peoples fooled into something, but in the end, just shortly after the wars, the American people got their shit together. It still amazes me Kerry 'lost' because the polls at that time were already trending against the war, just a year after it started.

37. I wasn't fooled. It was all plainly bullshit

to me. Anybody who examined the arguments and evidence who was fooled is just stupid and a fool.

There were people who knew very well there was no evidence of WMD who accepted the arguments because they were simply cowards or warmongers and didn't care about the actual risks. And then there were the profiteers.

38. I thought it was about even money that there would be some chemical weapons

so I was a little surprised that no chemical weapons at all were found. I will also say that I thought a short war might be preferable to the regime of sanctions that we had on Iraq at the time. The sanctions mostly killed poor and unconnected Iraquis leaving the regime unharmed. Clearly the notion of a short war was idiotic in retrospect.

41. "We" as in the American people? Were fooled into it

-- Do you believe in Iraqi "WMD"? Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq.

People tend to become "independent of reality" in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents _ up from 36 percent last year _ said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

97. Yes, large swaths of the American people were fooled; but what about members of Congress?

As I recall, a higher percentage of Democrats who had access to the classified NIE voted against the IWR in October 2002.

Of course, many Dems in Congress echoed some of the rhetoric Bush was spewing about the Iraqi threat, but what a politician says during an election season to sound tough on national security in the climate of fear that prevailed at the time -- and what he or she rationally believed regarding the actual threat -- are not necessarily the same thing.

42. Those who had a lot of time to pay attention to the news weren't fooled,

but those of us who were working long hours, read and trusted the MSM during that time, were easily fooled.

The LA Times took its time and seemed very reluctant to even print news of the Downing Street memos.

Seems to me that most of the press hasn't to this day apologized for the sloppy reporting on the lies of the Bush administration.

And to those who say that Bush really did not know, and therefore did not lie, I challenge you to persuade me that the Bush administration could have made so many errors with regard to so much of the "evidence" they cited to justify their invasion:

1) WMDS -- there really weren't any of any importance that weren't known to the UN inspection team. This was a lie and a hoax.

2) the purchase of nuclear material from Niger -- a hoax involving obviously forged documents. (What a joke that our CIA and media couldn't see through that -- impossible.)

3) links to Al Qaeda -- obviously false and based on an unreliable source as well as a source who was tortured. Who believes that sort of "testimony" or "evidence." Clearly claiming to believe that "evidence" was a big, fat lie.

Then there are the Downing Street memos. The Blair government knew that that the war was illegal.

And people in the Bush administration knew that the war was about the oil fields in Iraq. Read "The Price of Loyalty." It is an eye-opener if you still have any doubts.

And yet, our MSM has never apologized to us, not really, about misleading us, lying to us. Have they ever taken their share of the responsibility for the deaths of our servicemen and the many Iraqis.

The MSM needs to take its share of blame and then set the record straight on the Bush administration and what it did.

The Bush administration members are not likely to be held responsible until the MSM owns up and admits that they deceived us. This is up to individual reporters and specific news media.

If the MSM can be honest with us, maybe the victims of the war, including the many survivors of our soldiers injured and killed in the Iraq War, can have some sense of completion and justice.

43. the problem is that the use of the aggregate "we" is tricky

but in for a pound in for a penny. It's simply my observation that most humans are persuadable. WMD or not, the majority of Americans were persuaded that Iraq posed a danger- imminent or not and thus supported a war.

Of course claims like this one: "The ho-hum reaction to no WMD being found suggests that nobody much cared whether there were WMD. Where were the riots?", are pretty silly. Millions of Americans were outraged. You appear to think that only riots would have demonstrated outrage. That's a pretty outrageous claim.

74. as you wish

The observation about human nature in the OP is what it is.

One can nibble it to death with silly word games if one wishes, but I assume that you, Cali, generally understand the phenomenon of people 'believing' things that match their emotional state absent any sense or evidence.

The American people (a phrase which rather obviously does not refer to all American persons) were not fooled. "We" believed our flimsy rationalizations the same way most Republicans 'believe' Obama was born outside the US.

Meanwhile, the American people do not believe in other things despite mountains of rock solid evidence.

And miraculously, what is claimed to be believed or not believed hews closely to what is compatible with our prejudices and interests, largely independent of the credibility of a given proposition.

But it is so much more fun to imagine that we are the "good Germans" led astray by a few bad apples.

But the NYT said this and that!!!!1!!!

So what? When, exactly, did the American people start believing everything a president says or everything the NYT prints?

America chose to pretend to believe a bunch of lies which, if incompatible with our mood, we would have instead chosen not to believe.

52. Bush conflated Al Qaeda with the Palestinians who are bombing Israel &that's why his lie worked

The neocons lumped Iran and Iraq's support of violent Palestinians with Al Qaeda and hence it became America's crusade to destroy all Moslem terrorists. We all know that Saddam was not helping Al Qaeda, but that real detail did not matter.

IIRC, Iran is still using Palestinians in a proxy war against Israel.

*Bombing: suicide bombers, rockets from Gaza, and whatever other means they can use to deliver nitroglycerin.

62. Those who weren't fooled were just powerless to stop it.

63. We, the people didn't have any say in the matter

Over a million people demonstrated in the UK against the Iraq invasion yet they were helpless and Tony Blair did what he wanted. No doubt MPs had a gun to their head. Many in the US were duped by the cleverly orchestrated events including 9/11 attacks which led to the Iraq invasion.

66. ++ Excellent. It' a bully's rationalization. The agreed lie.

A great point not made often enough. The "Big Lie" is a species of the same type of rationale. It's an agreed lie, and it's a great threat to people who use it to talk about that fact. And the hoi polloi has picked up the technique from demagogues now. It's World News Daily's whole business model.

Everyone knows, and has always known, that the Commies aren't coming, paper money in fact, works better than gold, guns DO kill people, and that Barack Obama was born in the United States.

But it's a convenient rallying cry to say otherwise. It sounds like a reason, and that's good enough, if you've already decided what you need to think to do what you want to do.

It's bad faith wielded as a sword, and it's everywhere screwing up the world for the benefit of greed and stupidity.

78. It was fairly obvious to me that our military knew there were no WMD,

just from the way we conducted the invasion. We wouldn't have put all our forces in one big, long invading caravan in the opening days of the war like we did if we thought there was some chance of chemical or other weapons being used. Jeez, the Iraqis could have gassed 50,000 troops at once!

As for the argument that Saddam shipped the weapons to Syria, that made no sense at all. If he wasn't planning to deploy them for his own defense, why would he have them at all?

87. "in order to feel good about their desire for senseless murder on television"

Was this desire conscious or subliminal, and what percentage of those who supported the initial invasion were really doing so out of a desire for graphic images of senseless murder more than two years after 9/11?

And how do you know this, other than drawing conclusions from your own thought process? I mean, unless a statistically significant number of people have actually told you of their personal bloodlust, how do you know what their desire was?

I think you're applying your own personal standards of geopolitical awareness to the American citizenry at large. When I talked to people in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, I found that most supporters either believed Iraq really did pose a threat and/or Saddam was a murderous tyrant who needed to be ousted. Also, many of their opinions were shaped by their own partisan mindset as Republicans and patrons of Fox News & talk radio. What I saw was mostly ignorance.

In your defense, some people did exhibit anger & bloodlust. We have all kinds of people in this country, and sweeping generalizations rarely if ever apply. Americans as a whole do seem to have fewer qualms about carnage in lands populated by brown people of a different religion/culture (but that's a generalization). Also, we are so far removed from the actual violence ourselves and so inured to it by our popular entertainment that it's easy for many to ignore the actual terror and pain inflicted by our military actions.

As for the lack of overwhelming outrage when no WMD turned up, that's more a case of the partisan mindset and cognitive dissonance than proof that the 70% polled who believed Iraq was connected to 9/11 were actually aware that all the talk of WMD and al Qaeda ties added up to a Big Lie. I think many people are perfectly capable of fooling themselves by believing what they want to believe, and one of the hardest things for anybody to consciously admit to themselves is that they were dead wrong about something like this -- played for a fool by an administration they steadfastly defended against critics they saw as worthless libruls or even traitors. Rather than admit all that, it's a lot easier to simply put it behind you or compartmentalize it or continue to delude one's self.

Finally, yes -- we (the "collective" We The People) do shoulder the blame for this. Some of us marched in the streets and petitioned our representatives to stop this war before it started, but our representative democracy went ahead and committed this war crime anyway -- to our country's everlasting shame.